Suchergebnisse

This article looks at the diplomatic rhetoric invoked by the EU and China. Both actors are keenly aware of soft power attractiveness. Both actors are sensitive over the role of public diplomacy - policies and language - in generating soft power profiles. In this domain of public diplomacy language, both actors use the terms 'multipolarity' and 'multilateralism' in their discussion of their relationship in particular, and the international system in general. Yet each side emphasizes one more than another and each side treats the concept differently. This convergence and divergence over relative use of multipolarity and multilateralism indicates the role of strategic language, it indicates some of the limits of norm-based analysis and policies, and perhaps indicates the (soft power) non-traditional security areas where the EU-China strategic partnership can push forward on, as well as indicating (certain hard power) areas that are not particularly meaningful, despite the rhetoric. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThe article begins by locating human rights law within the current political context before moving on to critically review judicial reasoning on prisoner legal rights since the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998. The limited influence of proportionality on legal discourses in England and Wales is then explored by contrasting a number of judgments since October 2000 in the domestic courts and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the restricted interpretation of legal rights for penal reform and proposes an alternative radical rearticulation of the politics of prisoner human rights.

The European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) both use the terms 'multipolarity' and 'multilateralism' in their 'public diplomacy' rhetoric and in their analyses of the international system. However, while the EU stresses multilateralism, the PRC remains explicit in its welcome of multipolarity. Yet shifts are apparent. In part, there may be some 'international socialisation' in play in which EU multilateralism usage, normative underpinnings, rub off on the PRC. In part, both terms are being supplemented by still wider overlapping terms of references for an untidy multilevel international system, such as 'interpolarity', 'asymmetrical multipolarity', 'region-polarity', 'inter-regionalism', 'multilateralising multipolarity' and 'multi-multilateralism'. An untidy multilevel EU may find it easier to operate in such a shifting international system than a tidy sovereignty-sensitive PRC?

AbstractThis article discusses some of the issues regarding the acquisition of art and the different philosophical views of some of the main protagonists regarding the reclaiming of art by nation-states, following American museums' acceptance of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, using examples from the Getty Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The mediation of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) claims by conservators is often an important component of the dialogue between museums and native communities. The philosophical and art-historical opinions regarding the value of copies and reproductions of works of art have oscillated from promulgation in the 1860s to outright rejection by the 1920s. In a modernist sense, points of view are once again open to reevaluation as host nations demand back more originals than ever before. Arguments against the claims of nationalist-retentionist countries and those advanced in favor of the claims of nation-states regarding the repatriation of their art are discussed. The problems created by looted art in association with the ever-increasing number of fakes is highlighted, with examples of the issues surrounding pre-Columbian art and some classical antiquities. The utility of copies in relation to the protective value of the authentic piece is discussed in the context of museum examples in which the concept of the utilization of copies for museum display has been accepted in certain cases as desirable.

Alongside analyses on the role of the Great Powers, there has been great interest shown in recent years on what has been called 'the rise of the Middle Powers' in the international system. At various levels Australia and Australians have adopted the term Middle Power, where it becomes a question of role and indeed of identity for Australia. This position and role is captured with comments like 'Australians see themselves, and are seen by others, as a middle power.'. Adapted from the source document.